Table 1.

Basic information about 119 patients with confirmed LDTVD.

Prelininary and verifired diagnosis of LDTVD			Effect of TLE on severity of TR in pts with LDTVD impression of echocardioigraphist
Preliminary diagnosis of LDTVD	125	4.90%	Insignificant	73	61.34%
Confirmed diagnosis of LDTVD	119	4.44%	Perceptible	33	27.73%
All patients	2678	100.00%	Significant	13	10.92%
Main/predominant Indications for lead extraction in patient with LDTVD			All LDTVD patients	119	100.00%
Symptomatic lead dependent TV dysfunction	45	37.82%
Lead damage/dysfunction (lead replacement)	39	32.78%	Changes of degree of TR after TLE (degrees)
Systemic infection or local or mixed infection	21	17.65%	No change (the same)	77	64.71%
Upgrading, downgrading, prevention of lead abandonment	11	9.24%	Reduction of TR for 1 degree	38	31.93%
Recapture venous access (symptomatic occlusion, lead replacement/upgrading)	3	2.52%	Reduction of TR for 2 degrees	4	3.36%
All LDTVD patients	119	100.00%	All LDTVD patients	119	100.00%
Mechanism of TV dysfunction (partial immobilisation of the leaf or irritation causing degeneration)			Average right ventricular lead dwell time	104.57	SD 69.8
Propping upward the leaflet by the lead	45	37.82%	LDTVD and cardiac surgery after TLE
Drawing down f the leaflet by the lead (immobilisation)	57	47.90%	Indication reached—observation	22	18.49%
Impingement of the leaflet by the lead presence (irritation)	3	2.52%	No indication—observation only	74	62.19%
Perforation of the leaflet with the lead	3	2.52%	Referred for TV plastic	18	15.13%
Connection of lead with the lead with scar	11	9.24%	Not considered (contraindication, lack of agreement)	5	4.20%
All LDTVD patients	119	100.00%	ALL patients with LDTVD	119	100.00%

Abbreviations: LDTVD—lead dependent tricuspid valve dysfunction, TLE—transvenous lead extraction, TV—tricuspid valve, TR- tricuspid regurgitation.